Holy fucking balls, play the game before you judge it on it's graphics. You guys are fucking bigots.

We're comparing games to art because GAMES ARE ART. For fucks sake I wrote a 12 page paper last year on why video games should be studied as literature. Stop looking at screenshots - you can't play those.

Stop looking at screen shots. This game is based so much more on what players are COMMUNICATING to one another than off of whether or not you can shoot the other guy. Appearances are nothing. The game is entirely based around the moments where you're telling one team you want to trade with them, while you're trying to coordinate a strike with another time to swoop in and wreck their shit, all while telling YOUR team to shoot everything that moves. It's socio-political dynamics, not graphical.

Sam, how are you criticising this for it's graphics if you play minecraft? They're pretty much on the same level.

IVhorseman wrote:Holy fucking balls, play the game before you judge it on it's graphics. You guys are fucking bigots.

We're comparing games to art because GAMES ARE ART. For fucks sake I wrote a 12 page paper last year on why video games should be studied as literature. Stop looking at screenshots - you can't play those.

Stop looking at screen shots. This game is based so much more on what players are COMMUNICATING to one another than off of whether or not you can shoot the other guy. Appearances are nothing. The game is entirely based around the moments where you're telling one team you want to trade with them, while you're trying to coordinate a strike with another time to swoop in and wreck their shit, all while telling YOUR team to shoot everything that moves. It's socio-political dynamics, not graphical.

Sam, how are you criticising this for it's graphics if you play minecraft? They're pretty much on the same level.

They have great textures, and this game has bland non contrasting colors. HUGE difference. Also, you can't lie bad graphics can hurt an experience. DOOM looks more visually appealing than this because it looks retro, this looks like shit!

We're not saying the game mechanic is bad, we'd just much rather have the same mechanic in a game that looks like it takes itself seriously. Ever heard of the word "atmosphere?" If a game is supposed to have the feeling of suspense, it should look like it does. Boxhead: The Rooms doesn't have a lot of suspense in it.

samuelzz10 wrote:They have great textures, and this game has bland non contrasting colors. HUGE difference. Also, you can't lie bad graphics can hurt an experience. DOOM looks more visually appealing than this because it looks retro, this looks like shit!

samuelzz10 wrote:They have great textures, and this game has bland non contrasting colors. HUGE difference. Also, you can't lie bad graphics can hurt an experience. DOOM looks more visually appealing than this because it looks retro, this looks like shit!

samuelzz10 wrote:They have great textures, and this game has bland non contrasting colors. HUGE difference.

This is the worst possible way to state the difference. So having visible pixels is considered having great textures?

samuelzz10 wrote:Also, you can't lie bad graphics can hurt an experience. DOOM looks more visually appealing than this because it looks retro, this looks like shit!

What you're saying here is that a game that looks bad can suddenly look good because of the year in which it came out.

You're showing symptoms of the dreaded "I have no valid point" syndrome. You know it's malignant when you see the dreaded "...but it's different because..." phrase, without giving an actual reason that isn't "I like it better."

samuelzz10 wrote:They have great textures, and this game has bland non contrasting colors. HUGE difference.

This is the worst possible way to state the difference. So having visible pixels is considered having great textures?

samuelzz10 wrote:Also, you can't lie bad graphics can hurt an experience. DOOM looks more visually appealing than this because it looks retro, this looks like shit!

What you're saying here is that a game that looks bad can suddenly look good because of the year in which it came out.

You're showing symptoms of the dreaded "I have no valid point" syndrome. You know it's malignant when you see the dreaded "...but it's different because..." phrase, without giving an actual reason that isn't "I like it better."

Yeah, not finding the right words here. but half baked 3d models don't look better than high quality 2d models.

IVhorseman wrote:Whatever, Ya'll are just missing out on all the fun.

I'm probably going to pick it up (by that I mean download) this weekend

I purposely linked the youtube video in the OP. If you didn't watch that and only say that screenshots look bad, then you're a moron.

Personally I feel that the simplicity of the graphics and the blandness of the colors all add to the game because they force the player to focus on what's happening rather than what's around you. It's a simple game with a simple concept that deserves simple graphics. The complexity is added not by the game itself, but by other human beings, who often times are untrustworthy, moronic, trolling, noobish, and, on occasion, cooperative. This layer of complexity cannot be seen by screenshots or trailers, but by either playing the game or watching someone else play it, which is why I posted the youtube video in the OP. Listen to how much fun those guys are having and then think to yourself if you want to have fun like that. If not, then go play Madden. I heard that they have some great graphics these days. The Madden 13 graphics really put it head and shoulders above Madden 12.

Zupponn wrote:I purposely linked the youtube video in the OP. If you didn't watch that and only say that screenshots look bad, then you're a moron.

I have seen them, and to IV, no see, the thing is, Picasso spent years practicing doing traditional stuff like figure drawing etc, so that when he did go and take his time to create something abstract, every bit of it was done carefully and intentionally, with a full understanding of his medium.

This entire argument is stemming from the fact that some people just don't see games/movies/etc as anything more than entertainment devices. A means to an end. This sort of understanding robs the individual of the ability to truly enjoy and experience things, and is perpetuated by the industry at large, as they continue to create games, as well as other media, that panders to this sort of understanding. So, indeed, your judgements are legitimate when talking about most mainstream titles, as there is not a whole lot of true artistic intention in those games.

HOWEVER, Sub Rosa is clearly about more than selling you a game to satisfy YOUR needs for entertainment. The guy didn't make the game to sell and entertain; he made it to explore a few ideas, and that makes it art. Since it is art, it cannot and must not be judged by the same standards of mass produced entertainment pieces.

Zupponn wrote:Picasso spent years practicing doing traditional stuff like figure drawing etc, so that when he did go and take his time to create something abstract, every bit of it was done carefully and intentionally, with a full understanding of his medium.

What, and you don't think this guy had years of traditional programming experience?

stubby wrote:Chess is a shitty game because the miniatures aren't even painted

Well, I guess it's a good thing none of us called this a shitty game, then. There are chess sets that have extremely detailed pieces that look incredible. Some people prefer that to the abstract representations you find in a traditional chess set. Exact same game, but it looks more developed.

Notice how no one is criticizing how the game works, yet you all seem to think we're attacking the game as a whole. I think it sounds like a lot of fun, but I'd rather not have my eyes beaten while I play. Try eating an ice cream cone while sitting in a room with disgusting colours, and tell me that visuals can't ruin the experience.

I don't get why you're defending its lack of visual development. Just because the creator puts lots of thought into one aspect of the game, he gets to completely slack off in another?